How offensive does Richard North have to be to alienate his loyal readers?

Could our old friend and blogger Richard North be more cunning than he first appears? At first sight you might mistake him for a man with a full set of unexamined, reactionary views: the Victor Meldrew of man-made climate change denial, who feels constantly assailed by such unintelligible concepts as science and government. But I'm beginning to suspect that something else might be going on. My guess is that he has accepted a lucrative bet: someone has wagered that, however stupid or unpleasant his posts might be, he will never alienate his loyal readers. So far, he seems to be losing.

"What would be really interesting in this respect would be an examination of cultural attitudes to lying – why, for instance, Indians such as Rajendra Pachauri are practiced liars and why others find it difficult to accept that they are being lied to, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence."

In the comment thread, one of his supporters responded, "anything east of dover, not to be trusted!"

North then wrote: "There are a lot of Kermits to the west of Dover ... to say nothing of the Dagos and sundry others. These are to be trusted?"

This failed to elicit a single critical comment on his thread – unless, that is, he deleted them. Must try harder.

"it is only a matter of time before some fool (many fools) tell us that it is the warmest year since Noah built his ark, warning that we are going to fry unless we pay zillions of dollars into the kitty for jungle bunnies and development corporations such as Oxfam."

Jungle bunnies eh? I don't think I've heard that term since Alf Garnett was on the air. But still, nothing but adulation from his small but adoring fan base. Four pages of comments, and not a single complaint about this term.

"£2.9bn is precisely the sum we are being forced to dole out to the jungle bunnies so that they can buy windmills, solar panels and new Mercedes cars for their rulers and their entourages. Since all these stoods [sic] are dead keen on saving the planet and being nice to jungle bunnies, they surely can't possibly object to paying up to £9,000 a year for their degrees … On the other hand, some of us might actually find this cash deprivation exercise as offensive as others find our use of the term 'jungle bunnies'. But then, I reckon that if we are being forced to contribute so heavily to their wealth and wellbeing, we have earned the right to label our beneficiaries as we please. Beggars can't be choosers."

The result? Failure yet again: the only comment on the thread which addressed the issue moaned about how, "in the current self-censorship, thought-crime atmosphere", you can't use the term jungle bunnies without causing offence. Harsh times, aren't they?

So what would Richard North have to do to win the bet? I suspect that the only thing he could say that might offend his acolytes is that climate scientists might know just a wee bit more about climate science than they do.